That “Conservative” Supreme Court

In the Monday open thread, I called attention to the BBC’s misrepresentation of the US Supreme Court’s vote to overrule an Appeals Court ruling upholding racial preferences in university admissions. The BBC claimed that the Supreme Court has gotten more conservative since 2003, when the Court originally voted to uphold racial preferences, and on which the present case was based. This was a BBC suggestion as to the cause of the ruling.

I called that assessment into question, not only because the vote was 7-1 (with the very Left-wing Kagan recusing herself, as she supported the case in a previous job), with two liberal Justices joining the majority, but because the Court had in 2003 and still has now a liberal majority, 5-4.

The Justices in 2003:

Chief Justice Rehnquist – conservative
Stevens – liberal
O’Connor – conservative
Scalia – conservative
Kennedy – liberal
Souter – liberal
Thomas – conservative
Ginsburg – liberal
Breyer – liberal

5 liberal – 4 conservative

Today’s Court:

Chief Justice Roberts – conservative
Alito – conservative
Kennedy – liberal
Thomas – conservative
Sotomayor – liberal
Ginsburg – liberal
Scalia – conservative
Breyer – liberal
Kagan – liberal

5 liberal – 4 conservative

Today, the Supreme Court voted to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred homosexual couples from having certain benefits and rights that heterosexual couples have. Spot the missing President who originally signed the bill into law. Can you guess which political party he was? Can you guess which leading Presidential candidate for 2016 with a close personal connection to him? Blatant bias by omission there. I do hope they add this relevant bit of information as the story “evolves” (i.e. an editor tells them to stop hiding what they already know). (UPDATE: The story has evolved. The BBC now mentions Clinton, although not his party. But they get points for admitting that it had bi-partisan support in Congress. Mark Mardell would have been pleased with their determination to reach across the aisle to get things done.)

This uncomfortable fact was also censored from the BBC’s Q&A on the issue of homosexual marriage. All you’re told is that the law was “passed by Congress” in 1996. Of course, when The Obamessiah signs a bill into law, it’s all about Him doing it. When it’s a law they don’t like, particularly when it’s one signed by a darling Democrat, there’s no President to be seen.

Also, check out how the Justices voted. Exactly along the labels I gave them above. More conservative still?

What’s funny is that this is now the third major ruling in the last year in which the Supreme Court ruled on the liberal side of an issue. They upheld the key portions of ObamaCare, and struck down the key part of Arizona’s “controversial” law about dealing with illegal immigration. Now with this decision, the Left-wing/Progressive faction has victories in the three biggest issues. Yet the BBC describes the Court as becoming more conservative when it returns a decision to the lower court. Note that no law was struck down or upheld specifically by the racial preferences ruling, but rather rejected a lower court’s decision. The law is still in place, yet the BBC decided to plant the notion that the Court had become more conservative, in spite of the evidence.

Now that there’s yet another Left-wing victory, the BBC is not pointing out the liberal majority on the Court, or even daring to remind you of the political party which originally signed the DoMA into law. Is the Court still trending conservative, BBC?

The BBC should simply shut down the entire US division and replace them all with a shaved orangutan managing a news aggregator. You’d be more and better informed, and tens of millions of pounds would be saved.

Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to That “Conservative” Supreme Court

  1. stuart says:

    i quite cant understand if liberals in are america are the same as liberals in the uk,are the left in america as full of bile and hatred as the left are in the uk,seems like reading this article they are 2 cheeks of the same backside.the bbc love obama and the democrat party and sneer and poke fun at the republicans.


  2. Roland Deschain says:

    David, it now says right at the bottom that it was signed into law by Bill Clinton. No mention of party, but I don’t suppose it needs to.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Like we figured, the story has “evolved”. They knew Clinton signed it, but declined to mention it, figuring it wasn’t important enough to waste ten seconds typing the sentence before rushing to publish at least something on such an important story. I see now that they even admit that the DoMA had bi-partisan support in Congress. Don’t you just love it when there’s no polarized gridlock, and both parties work together, BBC?


  3. Alex says:

    Good post, David. If you continue this level of analytical rigor, then the site will increase its reputation for top-notch criticism. I wish I had time to construct more criticisms but I simply don’t have time anymore.


    • Lord Foul says:

      Very patronizing post, Alex… Your posts are very boring.


      • London Calling says:

        “Very patronizing post, Alex… Your posts are very boring”

        Yawn, ad hom, LF. 6.22pm on overtime are we?


  4. fly on the wall says:

    i agree with you lord foul.


    • London Calling says:

      I don’t agree with you, made-up-name f-o-t-w
      There, that was useful exchange, wasn’t it?


  5. Span Ows says:

    Nice post, again, David. I wish someone would print off all your USA posts and put them in a dossier for delivery to all BBC Trust (haha) members, major media outlets etc.

    The one point I would disagree with is shaving the orangutan…